Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
Auch Ihnen steht es frei, sich zu isolieren und andere Menschen zu vermeiden. Dafuer ist kein Lockdown noetig.
Die Alternative ist wie gesagt, keinen Lockdown zu haben, Menschen zu befreien, ihre Gesundheit ihnen selbst zu ueberlassen, und sie selbst Risiken planen zu lassen.
Im Gegenzug wuerde es mich sehr freuen, wenn Sie auch kurz darlegen koennten, wie ich Sie davon ueberzeugen koennte – so ueberspitzt es zunaechst klingen mag – dass Lockdowns ein grosses Verbrechen von Regierungen an ihren Buergern sind.
Dies koennten Sie wiederum tun, indem Sie erkenntnistheoretisch erklaeren, wieso Probleme nur durch Zwang und nicht durch Zusammenarbeit und Wissensschoepfung geloest werden koennen.
Auch kleine Kinder sollten zu nichts gezwungen werden.
Ich bin Lockdown-Gegner. Sie koennten mich davon ueberzeugen, dass Lockdowns richtig und wichtig und gut sind, indem Sie eine gute und noch nicht bereits widerlegte moralische Erklaerung dafuer liefern.
Jeder, der mit anderen Leuten physisch in Kontakt tritt, geht das Risiko ein, dass er sich evtl infiziert. Wer dieses Risiko nicht eingehen moechte, dem steht es frei, sich zu isolieren. Er darf nicht verlangen, dass alle anderen zu seinem Wohle dazu gezwungen werden.
Sie moechten ihre eigene Gesundheit verwalten. Es ist nicht ihre Aufgabe, die Gesundheit anderer zu verwalten oder fuer die Gesundheit anderer zu sorgen, und noch weniger, ihr eigenes Leben fuer die Gesundheit anderer zu opfern.
Ich glaube, sehr viele wollen den Lockdown, oder nehmen ihn zumindest als "unvermeidbares Uebel" oder Opfer, das zu bringen gilt, hin.
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
We've arrived at the discussion pattern sooner than I thought.
Ich glaube nicht, dass sie so tun wollen, als gaebe es den Virus nicht.
Sie moechten gerne ihr Leben selbst bestimmen und ihre Gesundheit selbst verwalten. Sie moechten selbst ueber Risiken entscheiden. Sie moechten ueberzeugt werden, nicht gezwungen. Was ist daran falsch?
Lauten Ihre Antworten auf meine Fragen "ja" oder "nein"?
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
I quote from my tweet 45 min ago:
The article already contains that, so I doubt it would convince you.
Why doesn't what is written in the article already seem plausible to you?
@tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
Do you think it is an accident that those studying the brain model such algorithms in terms of neural networks? Where do you think that inspiration comes from?
A static mind tells itself: "you know enough." A dynamic mind asks itself: "what else can I learn?"
Koennte es sein, dass Lockdown-Gegner nicht wollen, dass ihnen diktiert wird, wie sie zu leben haben? Und koennte es nicht auch sein, dass darunter viele Ladeninhaber sind, die drohen, pleite zu gehen?
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
I could well be wrong about that because it's been a while. So if you can name something much more specific that would change your mind, I might be down to discuss.
I'm looking for something along the lines of "if it can be shown that .... x"
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
- me trying to tell you why something you're saying cannot be true (an attempt at a refutation)
- you claiming it is true anyway by giving another example, repeating the point, or bringing up something else I hadn't refuted yet
- repeat
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
The article already contains that, so I doubt it would convince you.
We've discussed before; from what I recall, those discussions usually went:
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
That doesn't answer my question.
@SurviveThrive2 @tyrell_turing @danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection
And how could one convince you that you're wrong?
Sie wollen auch keine Busse tun. Unterscheiden sich Lockdown-Gegner also nicht eher von Flagellanten?
Bei den deutschen Lockdown-Gegnern – so wie ich das hier aus den Staaten ueberblicken kann – sind sicherlich ein paar Dummkoepfe und Verschwoerungstheoretiker und Rechtsradikale dabei. Aber es scheint mir, dass sie den Status Quo, also Lockdowns, nicht wollen.
Die Flagellanten geisselten sich, weil sie Gott zeigen wollten, dass sie Busse tun – sie wollten ihm zeigen, dass es ihnen Leid tut, weil sie die Pest als Strafe Gottes sahen. Es ging ihnen darum, den Status Quo – also die Ehrfurcht vor Gott – so genau wie moeglich auszuueben.
Shouldn't it either say "if you will be" or "we would be ... if you were"?
The photo reminds me of phrases such as "we request he be told." But that's not the way the photo uses it.
Inwiefern geißeln sich Corona-Gegner? (Und meinen Sie nicht Lockdown-Gegner?)
@BaileInis @Snusketeer @DavidDeutschOxf
Why are they incompatible?
@danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection @tyrell_turing
All kidding aside, judging by the abstract, the paper cannot explain how thinking works in humans because it violates at least one, maybe both of the following razors:
@danilobzdok @Neuro_Skeptic @introspection @tyrell_turing
“How do humans not learn?”
Highly doubtful that whoever wrote that intended that or even knows what a subjunctive is.
It also doesn’t strike me as the correct use of the subjunctive, but I might be wrong about that.
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
No the very nature of science is conjectural and critical. Scientific truth can be discovered, but never established.…
RT @SpeechUnion:
.@dominicfrisby's joke about Covid-19 at the Free Speech Union’s comedy special at Comedy Unleashed 🤣 https://t.co/g1WtRJY…
“If you be less shit.” Vielleicht würde man sie mit besserer Grammatik ernster nehmen, und dann würden sie gar keine “Aktivisten” mehr sein wollen?
@noncom_apostate
So, to be clear, he's not arguing against capitalism?
I would be okay with there existing restaurants whose policy it is not to put gloves on when they make your sandwich. I would never go to such a restaurant—but again, that's a whole different thing from forcing restaurants to use gloves.
"Give me a break." Can you please argue in good faith and with respect? You may be right, and I may be wrong—but let's get there.
I do put my seatbelt on. I also wear a mask. I do these things because I think they're good. I would not dream of forcing anyone else to do them.
@noncom_apostate
Phrases like "renounce limitless consumption" and "social equality" make it sound like the author is after something quite different from what I'm advocating. Sounds to me like he wants to trade one coercive institution for another.
Or does he?
Making, as you put it, anyone do anything, against their will, is force, by definition.
I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it, sir.
"Make everyone..." Do you realize how nonchalantly you're advocating force against peaceful people?
@amitcc @ReachChristofer @mgoldingmd @reasonisfun
I like to disambiguate:
Helping people when you want to and are able to: great.
Being forced to sacrifice your life/health/money for the "good" of others: evil.
You are evil. You are forcing businesses to close, and to sacrifice their income and livelihoods for the health of others. You are steamrolling over people's daily lives and routines and lifestyles—coercing them to what you think is right.
Shame on you.
And just like that, Santa Clara County closed down gyms, movie theaters, restaurants... a death sentence to many businesses, which are being sacrificed for the health of others, which is altruism.
Do you see how evil altruism is? twitter.com/SCCgov/status/…
Is she going to get her lifetime-achievement award soon? twitter.com/ClimateWarrior…
@lolo16268 @ks445599
I'm the author btw if that wasn't clear yet.
@lolo16268 @ks445599
I don't think he did. The word "modern" doesn't appear in the article once. He speaks of metal and silicon, but the same argument could be used for computers made of chewing gum and vacuum tubes.
@lolo16268 @ks445599
Oh sure, but the knowledge in that circuitry—the reason it does what it does, how it does it, why it does things this way and not that way, etc—is still software. I do understand where you're coming from, however—on a sufficiently low level, the distinction seems to blur a bit.
Sometimes I automate even if I only need to do something once, because sometimes we’re mistaken about never needing to do the same thing again, and even if so, we can still open-source the solution and save others the headache.
Great thread. I likewise err on the side of automation. Even if you only automate parts you still save time in the long run and understand your problem situation much better.
One reason why programming is such an essential skill to have in one’s life.
@lolo16268 @ks445599
It's difficult to discuss when a simple yes-or-no question isn't answered but followed by five tweets. Can you answer my original question with just a "yes" or "no"?
@lolo16268 @ks445599
Not so. Knowing the parts of a computer and how they interact doesn't make one a programmer. Nor does one think about hardware all that much when programming.
Then may I suggest that by considering reintroducing a so-far refuted theory (in this case, Lamarckism), you may be heading down a blind alley. One would need to rescue Lamarckism first. Or, better yet, ignore it and build on top of Popper.
RT @SpaceX:
Falcon 9 launches Crew Dragon on its first operational flight with astronauts on board, beginning regular crew flights to the @…
RT @TheAtlasSociety:
Save The World? More Like ENSLAVE The World! #Mencken #ShrinkGovernment https://t.co/KhkWmpF6Pm
@lolo16268 @ks445599
Did the author limit his definition of information processing to particular hardware made of certain materials only?
@lolo16268 @ks445599
What part of this notion of information processing is wrong, in your opinion?
@lolo16268 @ks445599
Well, he (I) wants to say that software is abstract, but information processing always depends on a physical substrate, per David Deutsch.
Also there's the Deutschian idea that computation is when you use physical objects to represent abstract ones.
Don’t know what that means, but how would it refute existing refutations of Lamarckism?
Well, you can’t please everybody. twitter.com/PositivelyNot/…
Don’t click on that folks, it’s an impersonator account, not really Musk. Presumably phishing. Reported.
Yeah, well, physically something happens in the brain since all information processing is physical. But yes, it’s the wrong level of emergence. Also, creativity works without sense data, so whatever that “maturing” is can’t depend on sense data...
Oh, and biases. Lots of talk about biases. Biases this, biases that. Did I mention biases? CogSci is a lot about those. And seemingly not a lot about how people learn to correct for them.
@lolo16268 @ks445599
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
What do you think the author means by “computation”?
@PositivelyNot @risksolutioncon
But you tag your tweet “#WhatGabage” (sic), so clearly you’re not interested in having your mind changed. Or are you?
@PositivelyNot @risksolutioncon
Taking away human agency is very much a crime against humanity because agency is one of the core things that make people, people.
I am told that the WHO recommended governments do this. The main fault lies with China, however.
@PositivelyNot @risksolutioncon
The crime of putting people under house arrest, taking away their ability to make independent decisions, shutting down their businesses, forcing them to lose their livelihoods, driving them to despair and suicide... need I go on?
@lolo16268 @ks445599
Sounds reductionist. Does what you have in mind survive these two razors? blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/14/two…
Planets aren't sentient beings who care about their state. Nor does the universe care about that. If we can travel to a new planet and change it to our advantage, that's a good thing.
We should reach for the stars—not cower here on Earth until a meteor strikes.
Has it occurred to you that arguments like "fighting poverty and environmental degradation" are pretty slogans governments use to push through potentially abhorrent agendas because it is not socially permissible to criticize such slogans?
I have heard theories along those lines, albeit more of an accidental nature (foreign bodies carrying "seeds" crashing into earth).
Now, as a theory of the origin of life, that just kicks the can down the road, of course.
It appears Michigan is locking down again. So is Austria. I'm sure other countries are, too.
What does it tell you about govt, "checks and balances," etc, when govt has enough power to close businesses and restrict movement? Should anyone have that kind of power?
@AxcidentalTweet @SpaceX
Depends, how attractive are we talking, and is the alien clean?
Once it's in the air, the bright part looks a bit like a sperm, with its oscillating tail and big head.
Since one day this technology will bring humans to other planets, perhaps we are literally going to inseminate those planets with new life.
Creativity—the true of source of most of a mind's knowledge, imo, including perception and language processing—seems completely underrated and underrepresented in the field.
There seems to be little to no mention of how the mind creates those algorithms in the first place. It seems to be assumed that the mind inherits them (evo psych), or that information processing causes a physical maturing of the brain which endows the mind with abilities.
Spoke to a cognitive scientist the other day. From that conversation, CogSci seems to be a lot about studying algorithms that are present in a mind, such as perception and language processing, and about how they store and process information in the brain.
@SpaceX @Astro_illini @AstroVicGlover @NASA @JAXA_en
Those suits look so cool.
Didn’t read the whole thing, but it sounds like farmers are legally barred from shooting crows that are attacking their lambs. Seems to me that law should be repealed.
RT @ClimateWarrior7:
Climate lockdowns! Yesss!
Also the population should be reduced via mandatory queering.
RT @ClimateWarrior7:
White women are a problem that just doesn't go away.
I believe the solution lies in mandatory arranged marriages with…
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Onne is here to reinforce his notion of children as "barbarians" who need to be coerced. Of course, Onne could easily prove me wrong by presenting an argument that would change his mind about children.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
If the claim had instead been that of regularly dragging adults around and putting them in timeouts, or other people's children, I assume that would have been a lot more worrisome to some. That tells us something about society's image of what is okay for parents to do.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
It also speaks volumes that Onne's actions were defended by claiming, in effect, that they're (in reality only somewhat) socially acceptable and therefore they're morally acceptable. They're not.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
I think it speaks volumes that the guy who calls him out clearly and directly for this (again, open to being wrong) pays much more social penalty than the guy who openly despises and advocates violence against children.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
He's made it very clear that he hates children. He has called them "insane" and "ignorant barbarians," said dealing with them requires force.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
I am unclear about Onne's motivation in this discussion, however. Several points of his have been refuted, but then he dodges and shifts the conversation to something else. I don't think he has refuted anything I originally wrote, which would have been good.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
If by "the only means of stopping it" you mean discussion, it doesn't seem to have been ruined, because Onne continues to discuss, which is great. To be clear, I am open to the idea that my approach is wrong.
@tjaulow @DoqxaScott @ks445599 @onnlucky
What I was trying to say is that expecting good-faith discussion while at the same time engaging in name calling is rather hypocritical. You seem to be defending that attitude.
Please submit your comments by successively commenting on each of your subcomments—not by submitting every comment to the original tweet. Much easier to read that way.
Have you refuted refutations of Lamarckism?
Tolles Bild. GsD ist der Wahnsinn vorbei.
How would you pay for these things? How would you take bad actors into account?
Unclear, intimidating language makes it harder to receive criticism and, therefore, to improve.
"An international group of lawyers is preparing a lawsuit against the World Health Organization for “crimes against humanity” over the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns worldwide."
Good. Crimes against humanity have consequences.